₦airaland Forum

KellamLeTorneau:
That which is [size=14pt]made explicit[/size] to the lazy is not worth my time.

The @bold shows how knowledge is far from you.

I simply said you should rearrange your post because as I click quote on it, it was only your name within the quote tag that appeared.

So do the necessary thing and let the Bible study continues.

[quote author=KellamLeTorneau post=34465767][/quote]Mr man rearrange your post so that I can quote it. No time for copy and rearrange.

Rilwon:
Just as you have the right to quote the post that wasn't directed at you, but hey! I'm not here to argue or convince anyone to stop believing what they believed. The first post I quoted on this thread is my major concern - and I believe I have done justice to it. Every other thing you want to say is your cuppa, you have the right to type whatever rocks your boat.

You've turned to a preacher now waooo

So the post you first quoted, does it concern you?

I will like to see this.

OK.
Brother Rilwon help us open your Bible to the book of Genesis chapter 25 starting from verse 12 to 18.

Welcome to today's Bible study.

KellamLeTorneau:
Its simple as that, what agrees with the quran is true, what doesn't must be a fabrication.

Yet where you chose to make Bible agreed with Qur'an also contradict Qur'an i.e John 16 Jesus called God Father whereas there's no Fatherhood of Allah in Qur'an.

Jesus refers to god as the father and like biblical scholars admit, it doesn't mean that in a literal sense,

Waoooooo clap for yourself for knowing what Allah failed to know, now is about time to teach Muhammad's god that being called Son or sons of God don't literally mean God married any wife to Father Son or sons as Qur'an portrayed it.

if so then how many sons does the father have?, did your bible not say you are all sons of god?

After all you can reason beyond Qur'an now, so if God has millions sons it doesn't literally mean God gets wife before He could father them.

You can't compare literary terms and methods used in the Quran and the bible.

Of course why will I be comparing an inspired Book of God with the one fabricated by Muhammad who thought that by saying Son or sons of God means God must get a wife before He could father Son or sons.

And by the way, I think you mean "confused".

So what if I meant confused, do you have problem with that?

KellamLeTorneau:
Lol! So because THE was used therefore he is not infact a prophet that's your explanation?

I'll not take you serious if you actually thought this is my actual explanation.

Lmao this is the use of purpose of "the" denoting one or more people or things already mentioned or assumed to be common knowledge.

After you wrote the @bold with key point underlined you can still go further to write the below statement.

[size=14pt]It can't be[/size] that the "the" signifies his fame and so the people in question knew him? Or that they mentioned him earlier?

Read the bold and underline together and compare it with your above statement to see how ridiculous it is.

Besides, my point the fact that they [size=14pt]knew him as a prophet, I'm not questioning whether he is a prophet[/size] or not so you have no point here.[/size]

Thank God you agree that THEY KNEW HIM AS A PROPHET which leads me to my earlier emphasis that NOT THAT THEY ONLY KNEW HIM AS A PROPHET BUT A PROPHET WHO HAD ALREADY MENTIONED/SPOKEN ABOUT BEFORE and with the evidence in the Bible we know that THEY KNEW HIM AS THE ONE MOSES SPOKE ABOUT IN DEUTERONOMY 18:18 which your false professor has applied to Muhammad

You agreed with that verse and for you to change your posit now will be problem and this shows how Muslims always dance around the Bible.

Lmao! And I'm the confused one?

With the evidence provided above.

Rilwon:
Well, you have the right to type whatever you want with your phone;

Now you believe, do you also know that you have right to type whatever you like on your phone about Bible?

you have the right to quote whichever post you want to quote on Nairaland.

Just the way you're being quoting what you want from Bible on Nairaland.

But for me, my response was directed at the post I quoted, I owe you no arguement. You can as well say that part of the bible was written by muslims, or tell us that the bible God lied in that verse. Thats your cuppa.

No vex bros, he quite understood those verses because Bible unlike Qur'an has details of every history its making reference to.

The same Bible recorded where THE PROMISED of God to ISMAIL WAS FULFILLED.

KellamLeTorneau:
Jesus was a prophet, just like many others before him, heck your bible should tell you that.

When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?"

The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."

Matthew 21-10/11

This is the reason I always admit that Muslims are the most confused people on earth.

Now you said that Jesus is a prophet and quoted Bible to support it without even look at the textual claim surrounded the verses you quoted.

Firstly, the crowd said "...THE PROPHET..." if you're a good English student you'll notice the DEFINITE ARTICLE "THE" in front of that Prophet which means this prophet has a reference.

Secondly, So with this and more evidence in the Bible we know that THE PROPHET is a prophecy of Deut 18:18 whereas your professor Nakir has already deceived you people that Deut 18:18 is a prophecy of Muhammad as stated in the OP.

Finally, No winning way for you this crowd are correct and Muslims like Nakir and you are wrong.

KellamLeTorneau:
Think of it as a partly recoverable corrupt file. [size=14pt]Parts that agree with the Quran are legit.[/size] Rubbish like the original sin and isaac etc, that's what corruption entails.

The bold part is laughable so any part that against Muhammad and his book is corrupted.

Imaging in one of the verse the OP used to prove Muhammad in the Bible we see Jesus addressing God as FATHER whereas Quran and Muhammad never regard God as Father.

Yet you couldn't see this as an implication to Muslims claim but believe it agreed with Quran.

Funny and confuse people...

KellamLeTorneau:
But that's the point. Its a topic that relies on how one sees it like.

So you mean Muhammad in the Bible it depends on how one sees it not as the way OP presented it as fact?

Besides, its too long and I'll say this, he'll say that, to what end? But the end point or end theory which he claimed Jesus is the son of god,

He say Jesus is the Son of God not son of god.

So that's the only part you want to address and neglecting the main point of the thread he had addressed. Whereas when you finally derailed the thread you'll do nothing than copy and paste not that you'll be using Bible as your brother used it to prove the case of Muhammad.

that is something that can be proved or refuted.

So the point of this thread can't be proved and refuted...

You are a devout christian, you have nothing to fear,

I don't need you to tell me this, my God does not give me the spirit of fear but of a sound mind.

I'm sure he'll pass with flying colours. You are also free and welcomed to answer the question.

I know he will but my point still remains the same don't derail the thread with that if you want to talk about you can open a new thread and invite him.

The problem you're having is that you jump too much

JMAN05:
Hahahaha this guy self. By saying J version, it shows you dont know what you are talking about. You even called them Greek manuscripts. Chai, go and google apostate site again and wipe this gaffe.

Greek manuscripts in that part it's as result of long typing.

Oh dey were translated into Hebrew around 1385AD? So that is where we got the form?

Can you tell us which manuscripts the translators of NW use? If you think I'm wrong.

But wait. What are u talking abt? The Greek manuscript we have on hand does not have the full form. I mean what is this guy talking about? How does that even favor ur position?

Go back to your brother's and my post and see the reason why I said you jump too much.

I was replying to his copy and paste work.

U don't have full knowledge of this subject. U are just making what I call a guess reply.

Imaging I'm making a guess reply with ALL the evidence I've provided from your own WT and NWT which none of you are yet to refute.

DP

JMAN05:
1. Are you of the opinion that Jesus went along with the popular Jewish tradition of not pronouncing God's name?

With the insertion of Jehovah in NWT just show me where Jesus and the Disciples address the Father as Jehovah/Yahweh...this is what have been demanding from your brother since.

2. Do you have the autograph written by apostle John? And why do you think that Jesus and John would not use the divine name when the Septuagint used in his day used the name?

Lol...so you mean the over 5000 Greek manuscripts in possession today is not dependable again, so the autograph of apostle John is what you're looking for.

If Jesus and His disciples used it, it would have been pen down by the NT writers with over 5000 Greek manuscripts in possession today.

So once again show me where Jesus and the disciples address the Father as Yahweh/Jehovah.

KellamLeTorneau:
Your whole refutation of these prophecies is debateable, infact its bollocks! But let's try to understand the logic of your last claim since the rest is too long. So Jesus is the son of God, and he sent him to guide all believers? Answer yes or no. If no, explain where I have it wrong.

What is the purpose of this thread if not to DEBATE?

Since his post is debatable go ahead and do the necessary thing I mean to refute those points.

I can see degression from the main point of this thread with that your question.

@scholar8200-don't allow him to derail this thread with that question.

alansary0064:
Yes originally but has undergoes modification by compilers and translator

So is it the Original INSPIRED ONE Zakir Naik used in his work you copy or the MODIFICATION one BY COMPILERS AND TRANSLATORS?

I have finally created my Child Theme.
Can some guide me on how to customize the site?
cc: kombo, hostkobo

TunjiMsp:
yes, the real one locked away somewhere not the revised one you are using this days

Are you for real?

Which one did your brother use in his quotation the real one locked away somewhere or the revised one I'm using and where did he see this original one that Christians don't have?

In case you forget NOTE : All quotations of the Bible are taken from the King James Version.

So you mean King James Version is the real one.

alansary0064

@OP

So that means Bible is AN INSPIRED Word of God, am I correct?

amii131:
ich wohnen in ikotun....und Sie?

Ich wohne in Abuja

Wie geht's ihnen?

RikoduoSennin:
John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did: were every one to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written"

@the bold section, that is a Very BOLD thing to say seeing as not everything Jesus did was written and you did not lived during his era.

I wasn't surprised at all with this your statement.

If we should go by you, then it means the writings of these blessed Apostles are not enough for us to know EVERYTHING about what Jesus taught. Anyway it's not strange since that's how your organization always do. Why did I say this?

When they want to build faith in Bible they claimed "No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or [size=14pt]the New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines."[/size] Reasoning from the Scriptures p. 64

"Not only are there thousands of manuscripts to compare but discoveries of older Bible manuscripts during the past few decades take the Greek text back as far as about the year 125 C.E., just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E. These manuscript evidences provide strong assurance that we now have a [size=14pt]dependable Greek text[/size] in refined form." All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial p.319

But when they were asked, why they insert JEHOVAH in their NWT? The story changes:
"Sometime during the second or third century C.E. [size=14pt]the scribes removed the Tetragrammaton from both the Septuagint and the Christian Greek Scriptures and replaced it with Ky´ri·os, "Lord" or The·os´, "God."[/size] " New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - With References p.1564 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures

So if the Scribes can remove the Tetragrammaton that means what we have in possession today have been tampered with and they can be trusted.

Is there any really reason why Jesus would see the use of the Divine Name as a 'Taboo'?

I think the question should be WHY NO SINGLE PLACE IN THE FOUR DIFFERENT GOSPEL ACCOUNTS OF JESUS CHRIST WAS RECORDED THAT JESUS USED THE NAME?

The Greek septuagint is my proof that the Divine Name exist during the first century C.E
/ during Christ Era.

So where are these Greek Septuagint today?

Either number one or two is well understood by you and the same conclusion can be made after considering John 17:6,26; Hebrew 2:11,12;

You're still beating around the BUSH, even with the insertion of Jehovah by NWT I'm still asking you to show me JUST A SINGLE VERSE where Jesus EVER CALLED THE FATHER Jehovah. Yet you couldn't.

Let me give you a small quote from Greek scholars and compare it with the WT interpretation of both John 17:,26 & Heb 2:12 to see the difference.
But let me start with this toking;

[b] The definition of the word 'name' includes:

1. A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others.
2. A word or group of words used to describe or evaluate, often disparagingly.
3. Representation or repute, as opposed to reality: a democracy in name, a police state in fact.
A reputation

[size=14pt]Likewise Strong's Concordance explains that 'name' (onoma - 3686)[/size] includes "everything which the name covers, everything the thought or feeling of which is aroused in the mind by mentioning, hearing, remembering, the name, i.e. for one's rank, authority, interests, pleasure, command, excellences, deeds etc." The root word for onoma is ginosko (1097), meaning;

*to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
*to become known
*to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
*to understand
*to know
*Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
*to become acquainted with, to know[/b]


[size=14pt]On John 17:6,26[/size][/hr]

Verse 6. Have manifested thy name. The word name here includes the attributes or character of God. Jesus had made known his character, his law, his will, his plan of mercy--or, in other words, he had revealed GOD to them. [size=14pt]The word name is often used to designate the person,[/size] Joh 15:21; Mt 10:22; Ro 2:24; 1Ti 6:1. Albert Barne NT commentary

Verse 6. I have manifested thy name] efanerwsa, I have brought it into light, and caused it to shine in itself, and to illuminate others. A little of the Divine nature was known by the works of creation; a little more was known by the Mosaic revelation: [size=14pt]but the full manifestation of God, his nature, and his attributes, came only through the revelation of Christ."[/size] Adam Clarke commetary

Verse 26. Thy name. See Barnes for Joh 17:6. Albert Barne NT commentary

Verse 26. I have declared unto them thy name, &c.] I have taught them the true doctrine. Adam Clarke commetary

[/hr]

[size=14pt]On Heb 2:12[/size]

"I will declare thy name. I will make thee known. [size=14pt]The word "name" is used, as it often is, to denote God himself.[/size] The meaning is, that it would be a part of the Messiah's work to make known to his disciples the character and perfections of God--or to make them acquainted with God. He performed this. In his parting prayer (Joh 17:6) he says, "I have manifested thy name unto the men whom thou gavest me out of the world." And again, Joh 17:26, "And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it." Albert Barne NT commentary

Verse 12. I will declare thy name] See Ps 22:22. The apostle certainly quotes this psalm as referring to Jesus Christ, and these words as spoken by Christ unto the Father, in reference to his incarnation; as if he had said: [size=14pt]"When I shall be incarnated, I will declare thy perfections to mankind; and among my disciples I will give glory to thee for thy mercy to the children of men."[/size] See the fulfilment of this, [size=14pt]Joh 1:18: No man hath seen God at any time; the ONLY-BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, HE HATH DECLARED HIM. Nor were the perfections of God ever properly known or declared, till the manifestation of Christ.[/size] Hear another scripture, Lu 10:21,22: In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes, &c. Thus he gave praise to God." Adam Clarke commetary

What we can conclude from here is; Jesus made known the Father's qualities. He highlighted a loving God, rather than focus on the more legalistic and destructive qualities so readily identifiable in the Old Testament Yahweh.
[/hr]

Why did the Jews stop using the Divine Name? Was it because of God's command or Tradition? Does Jesus obey the tradition of man?

I believe you have internet you can browse why the Jews stop using it.

Evidence shows that the pronunciation of the Divine name has been lost before Jesus Christ, if the usage of the name is so important for us;
1. Jesus as the Son of God suppose to have restored the details about the Name
2. Jesus would have given a commandment about the Name
3. Jesus would have setting an example by referring to the Father with that Name always.

But no single verse from the TRUSTWORTHY FOURFOLD GOSPEL ACCOUNT that supported all these including entire NT writers whereas these people can gave us more than two places where The NAME OF JESUS WAS CALLED UPON

Where did you come up with the above conclusion?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since you won't research The Greek Septuagint online- let me help you:

Imaging you want to help me when you've not helped yourself.

Anyway I won't bombard this post with many words but I'll only pick three most important parts

It is true, [size=14pt]no reference to The Divine Name, in it's complete form, can be found in the extant manuscript copies of the original text of the "New Testament".[/size]  However, an abbreviated form of The Name does occur at Revelation 19:1, 3, 4, 6, in the expression "Alleluia" or "Hallelujah" in KJ, Dy, JB, AS, and RS.

The bold part destroyed the argument of NWT because the ONLY MANUSCRIPTS for support is the over 5,000 Greek manuscripts which the usage of the Divine name has never been found. So which manuscripts the WT used to insert Jehovah into their NWT?

Sit down and enjoy the unfold truth about NWT.

"in the most accurate manuscripts THE NAME occurs in Hebrew characters, yet not in today's Hebrew [characters], [size=14pt]but in the most ancient ones."[/size]

Your author shot him/herself in the leg with this quote
Notice the underline & bold

Evidence indicates that the "New Testament" writers did NOT substitute The Divine Name with "kyrios," (Lord) or "theos," (God).

Your Author says EVIDENCE but no evidence was shown, why?

According to Professor George Howard, Associate Professor of Religion and Hebrew at the University of Georgia:

Your Author alluded to Professor Howard which is the normal practice of JWs quoting half message of a scholars or professors and withholding the most important message the person(s) trying to pass across.

Now see the whole truth:
In 1977 George Howard published a [size=14pt]thesis[/size] showing that the Old Testament retained YHWH in certain versions of the Greek Septuagint.

Three critical points must be made;

1. Howard's work did not examine the use of YHWH in the New Testament, but the use of YHWH in the Old Testament.
2. Howard then concludes with a theory that YHWH may have appeared in the New Testament, which the Watchtower chooses to present fact.
3. Howard's work contradicts the Watchtower concept that YHWH was not removed from the Septuagint until the second century after Jesus.

What we first know is that Howard's word is just a THESIS which WT themselves knew but decided to take it as TRUTH, can you imaging?
[/hr]
See the following discussion from the NWT Reference edition.

"Concerning the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Christian Greek Scriptures, George Howard of the University of Georgia wrote in Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 96, 1977, p. 63: "Recent discoveries in Egypt and the Judean Desert allow us to see first hand the use of God's name in pre-Christian times. These discoveries are significant for N[ew] T[estament] studies in that they form a literary analogy with the earliest Christian documents and may explain how NT authors used the divine name. [size=14pt]In the following pages we will set forth a theory that the divine name,... (and possibly abbreviations of it), was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the O[ld] T[estament] and that in the course of time it was replaced mainly with the surrogate ? [abbreviation for Ky´ri·os, "Lord"]. This removal of the Tetragram[maton], in our view, created a confusion in the minds of early Gentile Christians about the relationship between the 'Lord God' and the 'Lord Christ' which is reflected in the MS tradition of the NT text itself."
[size=14pt]We concur with the above, [b]with this exception: We do not consider this view a "theory," rather, a presentation of the facts of history as to the transmission of Bible manuscripts."[b][/size] New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures - Reference Edition p.1564 1D The Divine Name in the Christian Greek Scriptures

Can you see how WT played their game here?

The concluding part of Howard thesis that NWT didn't quote

"(2) Concluding Observations. The above examples are, of course, [size=14pt]only exploratory[/size] in nature and are set forth here programatically. Nevertheless, the evidence is sufficiently strong to suggest that the thesis of this paper is quite possible. We have refrained from drawing too many conclusions due to the revolutionary nature of the thesis. Rather than state conclusions now in a positive manner it seems better only to raise some questions that suggest [size=14pt]a need for further explanation."[/size]

And I believe that if Howard's word including NT and show where Jesus was applied with the name Jehovah like the way Hebrew J version
which was used for NWT you people would have discard his claim or cherry pick it as usual.
[/hr]

The Emphatic Diaglott, a 19th-century translation by Benjamin Wilson, contains the name Jehovah a number of times, particularly where the Christian writers quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures; but, as far back as the 14th century, the Tetragrammaton had already begun to be used in translations of the Christian Scriptures into Hebrew, beginning with the translation of Matthew into Hebrew that was incorporated in the work ´E'ven bo'chan by Shem-Tob ben Isaac Ibn Shaprut.  Wherever Matthew quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, this translation used the Tetragrammaton in each case of its occurrence.  Many other Hebrew translations have since followed the same practice.

I asked, since the Greek manuscripts we have in possession don't contain the full form of the Divine Name where did WT get it from?
It occurs that they used Hebrew J version (this is Greek manuscripts that were translated to Hebrew around 1384 AD) which came out thousand years after the canon of the Bible has been formed.

As an example, the New World Translation Reference Bible footnote to Matthew 1:24 cites;

24* Jehovah J1-4, 7-14, 16-18, 22-24; Lord AB

Whereas in the J version we found the Divine Name in 307 places For this reason the NWT does not include Jehovah in over 50 places that the J versions do. For instance J7 and J8 translate 1 Peter 3:15 as:

"Sanctify Jehovah God (who is Christ) in your hearts."
Other verses in which the Tetragrammaton appears in the "J" versions but not as Jehovah in the New World Translation include;

1 Corinthians 12:3
(J-14) "...no one can say "Jesus is Lord Jehovah, except by the Holy Spirit."
(NWT) "nobody can say: "Jesus is Lord!" except by holy spirit.

2 Timothy 1:18
(J-7,8,13,14,16,17,18,22,23,24) "The Lord Jehovah grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord Jehovah in that day..."
(NWT) "May the Lord grant him to find mercy from Jehovah in that day."

Why would the early copiests substitute kyrios (Lord) or theos (God) for The Divine Name?

From 66 CE to 135 CE there were:
Several Jewish revolts fostered much persecution by Roman authorities upon any who appeared Jewish;

After the apostle's deaths,  there was a great falling away from the true faith. (2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 2:3);

Most Jewish Christians were killed by the Roman authorities, leaving mostly "Gentile" Christians.  These Gentile Christians wanted to appease the Roman authorities and gain approval amongst Romans, in general, and therefore may have developed a propensity to discard almost anything that made them look Jewish, including The Divine Name.

See this blatant illogical statement, "MOST" Jewish Christians were killed but NOT ALL JEWISH Christians.

And the date conflict the evidence that WT provided that SOME GREEK MANUSCRIPTS CAN BE DATED BACK TO THE LAST APOSTLE who is John.
""Not only are there thousands of manuscripts to compare but discoveries of older Bible manuscripts during the past few decades take the Greek text back as far as about the year 125 C.E., just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E. These manuscript evidences provide strong assurance that we now have a [size=14pt]dependable Greek text[/size] in refined form." All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial p.319

So is it Jewish Christians who wrote those manuscripts or Jewish Christians where Lord and God were used?
[/hr]

Under these circumstances, we can see how most scriptures containing The Divine Name could  have been destroyed, leaving only copies that contained the substitutes, kyrios or theos.  Therefore, those who replaced the Tetragrammaton with "kyrios "in the both the OT and NT copies, were NOT the early disciples of Jesus; they were persons of later centuries, when the foretold apostasy was well developed and had corrupted the purity of Christian teachings.--2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 4:1.

I can't stop laughing the more you people continue to prove your false doctrine the you people discredit the Holy Bible.
Now your Author claimed that "we can see how most scriptures containing The Divine Name could have been destroyed,..."
Is there any evidence that Christians scriptures ever destroyed?

Therefore, in the days of Jesus and his disciples The Divine Name very definitely must have appeared in copies of the Holy Scriptures, both in Hebrew manuscripts and in Greek manuscripts.

Yet Jesus and his disciples never address the Father with this Divine name.

amii131:
wie heiben sie?

Guten Morgen
Ich heise Emusan, wo wohnen Sie?

Rilwayne001:
Lol. Ejó lo fèro

Bi iwó na se fèran ejó

My question is, is this holy spirit in talk the 3rd member of the trinity??

Where is the question in your post?

Don't derail this thread Mr man.

hadura29:
Super, und du?

Es geht

hadura29:
Guten tag, ich spreche ein bischen deutsch...

Gut, Wie geht's?

Rilwayne001:
Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:..... When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. [size=14pt] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.[/size]

Please ponder on the embolded and the underlined part of the above verse(s) and tell me your observation(s)

As usual speaking from both side of your mouth (These verses are very TRUE and come from God when the whole Bible is not the word of God according to you), but thank God that you have the boldness to go further beyond verse 13 as that's the place all Muslims always stop because what the next two verses that follow it say, it's worrisome and eyes opening.

In fact had it been that the spirit of your prophet isn't in you, you won't see this VERY OBVIOUS VERSES that solely against your claim and still went ahead to quote them to support the coming of Muhammad in a corrupt Book (as Muslims always claim).

1. Do you mean Muhammad GLORIFIED Jesus Christ?
2. Do you mean ALL what Muhammad gave you Muslims ARE WHAT he TOOK from Jesus?
3. Who did Jesus refer to as FATHER?
4. Do you believe EVERYTHING THAT THE FATHER HAS is OWN BY Jesus Christ?

Yet you want someone to "Please ponder on the embolded and the underlined part of the above verse(s) and tell me your observation(s)" when the truth is staring at you.

amii131:
danke

Guten Abend,

Sprechen Sie deutsch?

hadura29:
Auf wiedersehen Namadi sambo., Wilkommen Prof. Osinbajo..

Guten Abend

Sprechen Sie deutsch?

kombo:
What are you trying to achieve with this? That will aid the advice

-Kombo

I want to edit the site to my taste.

kombo:
Ok Boss... I am sorry I doubted you.. forgive me

-Kombo

Evening, I've created a Child Theme for my WordPress do I need to copy all the files I need to edit from the parent theme to the child theme before I can start editing them or I can start to edit them from the parent theme directly?

Thanks.

Rilwayne001:
Except you want to use your 1+1+1= 1 again. you already admitted jesus was sent by GOD, isn't it? which means that [size=14pt]he acted by the WILL of GOD and not his.[/size]

I don't have time to waste on you about this but @bold

Nope. What I am trying to say is that, GOD is not just the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob alone, He is the God of the universe as a whole.

Then who says God is the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob ALONE?

Lol.

Leaving oladegbu to his faith…

because your question is baseless...

Rilwayne001:
Lol.
Good to know that you have also finally opened up that, Jesus was sent by GOD, which implies that he is not GOD almighty.

WHICH IMPLIES...I believe it's your own conclusion not mine.

Meanwhile, the jesus I know wasn't just sent by God of those noble men you mentioned, he was sent by the GOD of the universe as a whole.

So do you mean the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob isn't the God of the Universe as a whole?

Also, jesus wasn't sent to the world as a whole, he was sent to the house of israel.

As you can see, mr. oladegbu is trying to shy away from the point I raised, can you help him out?[/b]

No time for this...

RikoduoSennin:
@bold section, That is your own conclusion not JW's. JW's do read other translations. They have read the Bible and came to see that it is important, [size=14pt]infact the Isrealite used it very often-[/size] the Divine Name YHWH appears almost 7000 times in the bible,

@bold-this same Israelite believed God has seven name: "The number of divine names that require the scribe's special care is seven: El, Elohim, Adonai, Yhwh, Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, Shaddai, and ?eba'ot." jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N (25/09/2005)

so why should we not use it often too.

Are you an Israelite?
And why did Jesus and His disciples didn't use it often?

Using the name shows you know THe Almighty God just like the Jews did and not the Samaritans.

Are you telling us that Jesus and His disciples don't know God for not using the name?

Rilwayne001:
YES, the 2 are not the same.

You've finally opened up that Jesus of Islam is different from Jesus Christ the Savoir of the World sent by God of Abraham, God of Isaac and God of Jacob.